Re: Shostak's Search Shift?

From: J. Maynard Gelinas <j.maynard.gelinas.nul>
Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2010 21:08:57 -0400
Archived: Mon, 04 Oct 2010 08:04:09 -0400
Subject: Re: Shostak's Search Shift?
>From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys.nul>>To: post.nul>Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2010 09:58:48 -0700 (PDT)>Subject: Re: Shostak's Search Shift?
Mr. Friedman,
I would like to offer a response and defense of the scientific
establishment here. For while some of your criticisms are
accurate, they are also infused with sarcasm belies a similar
confirmation bias in your response. This is Kuhn playing itself
out from both angles, without any reasonable common ground
between the two sides. Yet neither you nor Dr. Shostak know the
underlying reality here. Nor do I.
>Obviously the SETI community is unwilling to spend any time>reviewing the enormous amount of evidence that aliens have>been visiting Earth for at least many decades if not millennia.>Super sentients: YES! Aliens: NO! is the motto here.
Yes. Let's be clear, Dr Shostak and the scientific majority do
not view a "preponderance of the evidence" in the form of
witness testimony and unverified documents to be _science._ Real
scientists limit their factual statements highly specific claims
based on repeat observations of controlled phenomena. UFOs are
most certainly not under controls, and repetitions are
intermittent and rarely recorded by instruments. Professional
scientists _should_ be highly skeptical. Further, since the
phenomena doesn't fit within the scientific method for study,
professional scientists are limited in what and how to perform
quantifiable research.
That the majority have concluded - wrongly - that because they can't
controllably test the phenomena therefore it must not exist is
regrettable. Much time has been wasted. But it is not _unreasonable_.
The difference between your claims about Roswell and the statements by
Dr. Shostak are very simple: he is speculating; nothing more.
>It is clear from their books (which I have read) and their>articles and lectures which I have reviewed, that they>essentially never review the UFO evidence such as the 5 large>scale scientific studies, the many multiple witness radar visual>cases, the physical trace cases involving reports not only of>flying saucers on the ground, but the 15% of those cases>involving reports of humanoids.They know nothing about national>security.
Where are these humanoids? I've never seen one. I saw a flying
saucer once; I definitely believe my own eyes. But I've never
seen a humanoid alien. And I've got to say, the speculative
arguments made by evolutionary biologists _against_ the notion
of so many reports of different bilateral bipedal aliens make a
lot of sense. The Pre-Cambrian explosion is just one example of
how weird the morphology of biological forms can take. Life
found in and around hydrothermal vents are another example of
life taking form and sustenance in ways that belie the notion of
repeating bilateral bipedalism throughout the nearby galaxy.
There is simply no reason to assume that life repeats form
across environments in that manner. From my perspective, those
scientists have a strong point. The UFO community offers nothing
to refute these arguments but testimony from alleged witnesses.
So, the division here is: informed speculation vs. unverified
testimony. Who wins?
>They also are unwilling to review the evidence of abductions.>I can find no reason to accept proclamations from radio>astronomers about the behavior of aliens, no less earthlings.>Of course the reason is obvious.>There is no need for listening for primitive signals from out>there using technology compatible with ours.If aliens are>visiting, as they surely are, SETI which is looking for signals>not looking for aliens, is out of business. They are truly>getting desperate. The collective rule is "Don't bother us with>the facts,our minds are made up.">How pathetic and irrational.
I could not disagree more. The SETI scientists have used what
technology was available to conduct a search you almost
certainly _should_ approve of. Don't you want to find
intelligent life outside Earth? He's trying! He has more money
and resources than you, many smart scientists working very hard
to determine new methods for search, and decades of negative
findings behind him. I'm going to take a longshot guess that
he's never seen a disc in broad daylight. Why should he take
your word for it? Or anyone else's for that matter? And as for
digging through FIOA documents and reading journalistic (Good)
or historical (Nolan) accounts of the subject matter is simply
not what that guy does for a living.
From my perspective, his words are neither irrational nor
pathetic. Further, his insight on the potential for machine
cognition as a means for life in space fits the known UFO facts
just as well as those claims about biological entities. That is,
if one takes the conservative perspective of Kean - that one
should focus only on those cases with multiple simultaneous
witnesses, radar records, and other physical evidence, then
evidence for biological bipeds flying these things becomes
somewhat scant.
I don't write this to personally insult you. I greatly admire
the hard work you put in collecting testimony and FOIA
documents. But I think your statements here show a belligerence
toward traditional space science that works at odds to your
stated purpose: to get to the bottom of this weird UFO mystery.
Shostack probably isn't interested in UFOs, but he does want to
find alien intelligence. In that regard, you both seek the same
ends.
-M
Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast
At:
http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/
These contents above are copyright of the author and
UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced
without the express permission of both parties and
are intended for educational use only.